Did Gonzales Commit A Crime?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:11:58 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Benen, on Hardball yesterday, Ezra Klein had this exchange with Tweety and GOP operative Karen Hanratty:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about this more tricky question of Albert Gonzales. The president said the guy has done nothing wrong. Point to something he has done, Ezra. Because either that or the president is right completely. Point to something he did wrong.
KLEIN: Aside from the firing of the prosecutors?

MATTHEWS: No, what did he do wrong?

HANRETTY: That wasn’t wrong.

KLEIN: Well, there you go.

MATTHEWS: What crime did he commit? (CROSSTALK)

KLEIN: I’m not going to speak on whether or not he committed a crime, I’m not a lawyer. But what he did wrong was fire prosecutors for political reasons. I think we can agree on whether that is an ethical violation.

MATTHEWS: And that has never been done before?
HANRETTY: That is not illegal…. Yes, you absolutely can fire someone midterm for political reasons. It is not against the law.

More.

Benen notes that in 2001 Bush said:

We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right . . . There is no goal of government worth accomplishing if it cannot be accomplished with integrity.

Bush was full of crap in pretending to be a man of integrity of course, but it is funny to see Tweety, who had the vapors when Clinton misled on the Lewinsky matter, be so cynical and sanguine today. But the fact is we do not know if Alberto Gonzales committed a crime. We will only find out by either by initiating an impeachment investigsation or by naming a Special Prosecutor. The prima facie evidence is strong that Gonzales deliberately misled Congress at the least and, indeed, may have committed perjury. That is quite a thing from the Nation's top law enforcement officer.

So Ezra was honest and ethical in saying he did not know if Gonzales committed a crime, because none of us does right now. But Ezra's not knowing does not mean he did not. Only an investigation of the matter will answer that question.

< Pollack Seeks F.U. For NOT Talking About Iraq | On Iraq: The Mythological Veto Proof Majority >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Did Gonzales Commit A Crime? | 73 comments (73 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

From my perspective (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by TexDem on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:18:49 PM EST

Yes he did, but I'm not a lawyer. So I agree that this needs investigations to determine whether he did or not.

And the GOPpers squirm when you mention the double standard they take when it comes to truth and integrity. If it's their guy it's not lying or parsing, it's prudence. But that's not the position they had ten years ago.

: Gonzo broke laws (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by NMvoiceofreason on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 11:06:33 AM EST

18 USC Section 601: "Deprivation of employment or other benefit for political contribution", http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=601
18 USC Section 606: "Intimidation to secure political contributions", http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=606
18 USC Section 1505: "Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees", http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1505
and 50 USC Section 1809: "Criminal sanctions" http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=50&sec=1809
at the very least.
AUSAgate, AUSAgate, GuamGate/AUSAgate/NSAgate, NSAgate respectively.

[ Parent ]

firing the prosecutors (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Deconstructionist on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:31:58 PM EST

was perfectly legal.

Lying under oath is illegal. The question is whether there it can be shown that he intentionally testified untruthfully and whether anyone is going to try.

Also (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:39:18 PM EST

misleading Congress is a crime, whether under oath or not.

[ Parent ]

It was legal (4.66 / 3) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:37:37 PM EST

but not perfectly legal. It violated our understanding of how the Justice Department is run.

Also you should note that some have positied the theory tat the firings were designed to obstruct investigations. That could be illegal, indeed, a crime as I understand it.

That said, you should note that I discussed the potential crime as involving his testimony to Congress, not his act of firing the USAs. PErsonally, I think he was just following orders from the WH.

[ Parent ]

: Just like lying to the FBI (none / 0) (#12)
by TexDem on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:54:56 PM EST

a la Scooter Libby. Oh that's right he doesn't count. Besides according to the President he paid a heavy price for his conviction. Hmmfhp.

[ Parent ]
: Was it legal (none / 0) (#29)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:21:43 PM EST

if it was done for the purpose of interfering with elections by well-timed partisan prosecutions, including removing those who wouldn't play along?

[ Parent ]

Blanket statement is incorrect (none / 0) (#21)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:16:04 PM EST

They can be fired for no reason, or any reason, except an illegal reason. Seems to me we need more information before clearing Gonzo. Or do you have access to information I have missed?

[ Parent ]

it appears to me ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Sailor on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:43:15 PM EST

... some were fired to interfere with investigations.

[ Parent ]

All their reasons are illegal reasons (none / 0) (#57)
by NMvoiceofreason on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 11:15:03 AM EST

Y'all miss the point.

Any absolute power, such as pardoning, may not be used to corrupt the rule of law, EX PARTE GROSSMAN, 267 U.S. 87 (1925).

The scheme was a criminal conspiracy under 18 USC 601 et.seq. to use AUSA's for political benefit, to the detriment of democrats, and the benefit of republicans.

Neither the appointment power, nor the pardoning power, may be used for a corrupt purpose. You cannot fire them for refusing to do a thing which would be a crime if it were done, even using an "absolute" power.

[ Parent ]

So, let's see some proof. (none / 0) (#60)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 09:01:50 PM EST

: Here's a quite enlightening timeline (none / 0) (#73)
by Dadler on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 07:52:52 PM EST

US Attorney Firing Timeline.

[ Parent ]

ERROR JURIS NOCET (none / 0) (#27)
by Sumner on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:58:40 PM EST

Tweety: Deaf, Dumb & Blind (none / 0) (#2)
by RedHead on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:25:43 PM EST

...but he sure plays a mean game of pinball.

"Point to something he has done, Ezra."

I love how it parrots every elite DC dinner party line.

He is wacked out: note his recently defense of Senator Pampers, saying he didn't think it was important if a 3rd party was paying the fees.

Note on Bush's presser (none / 0) (#3)
by RedHead on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:28:04 PM EST

watching the lowlights, the main reaction I had was, "xanax must rock!"

The FISA Amendment (none / 0) (#6)
by Edger on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:37:43 PM EST

was passed to legalize what they have been doing for years.

That seems to me a tacit admission of crimes being committed.

Gonzales was counselling Bush that it was ok all along. Is that not a crime?

No (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:38:41 PM EST

A lwayer beiong wrong on what a court will decide is not a crime, at least I hope not. Cuz then I am guilty.

[ Parent ]

I see, I think. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Edger on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:45:14 PM EST

But was not Gonzo counseling Bush that it was ok to go ahead and order surveillance without FISA authorizations? Is not counseling your client to commit a crime a crime in itself?

Consigliere? RICO?

[ Parent ]

Actually, there wasn't a crime. (1.00 / 1) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:31:11 PM EST

Life is cruel sometimes.

John Schmidt, associate attorney general of the United States in the Clinton administration, superbly explains why the NSA intercept program is legal under all authorities and precedents:
"President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant."
Schmidt quotes the same language from the 2002 decision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review that we have cited repeatedly:
"the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The underlying article for this comes from the Chicago Tribune which has moved it into the archives. Please feel free to pay the cost and you can read the whole thing.

[ Parent ]

FISA Court said otherwise (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:48:55 PM EST

Schmidt's opinion was always crap. Now you have a court telling you.

[ Parent ]

Do say. (1.00 / 1) (#39)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 07:35:20 PM EST

Your argument is with Schmidt.

These are straight forward declaratory statements of what courts did and said.

Did he lie when he wrote:

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant."

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

That Bush desired to enhance FISA and asked Congress in January is another issue. Why he did so I do not know, but I do know that the Demos did nothing for six 6 months while our ability to gather intelligence was greatly hampered.

Wait. They did name a bunch of Post Office buildings ......

[ Parent ]

No (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 07:43:34 PM EST

Schmidt's argument is with the court.

[ Parent ]

I ask again. (1.00 / 1) (#41)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 08:28:07 PM EST

Is what Schmidt said accurate??

Was it NO appeals courts?? Three???

He made simple delaratory sentences. You should be able to make a simple declaratory answer.

[ Parent ]

Utterly inaccurate (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 09:12:14 PM EST

Quit parsing and answer (1.00 / 1) (#44)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:36:58 AM EST

Did the appeals court say and do what Schmidt has written?

Yes? No?

Did the FISA Court of Revuew say this??

Your failure to answer I think says thus:

You don't know and down't want to admit it.
Schmidt is accurate and don't want to admit it.

No (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:44:43 AM EST

Schmidt is inaccurate.

I have directly answered your questio9n.

I repeat, Schmidt is wrong in what he wrote.

[ Parent ]

We're getting there. (none / 0) (#47)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 09:14:22 AM EST

Thank you.

You are difficult to pin down.

(1)What part of the following is not accurate?

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

(2)In the following, the underlined portion is given as a quotation from the ruling of the FISA Court of Review.

Did, or did not, the FISA Court of review say that?

Schmidt is inaccurate in 1 (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 09:18:20 AM EST

2 is dicta by Lawrence Silberman, you have to know what dicta means, that has been contradicted by every other Court hearing such issues.

I suggest you read up on the subject.

In short, Schmidt is inaccurate in every respect.

Look Jim, you simply do not know what you are talkng about and have no idea how Schmidt, Powerline and the Bush Administration was thoroughly debunked on this point in December 2005.

You are not worth it for me to explain it all again for you. I will not. I just note for folks who care that this is so. If they need more info, they can ask me. For you, I will not lift a finger.

[ Parent ]

Heh The excuse game (1.00 / 1) (#51)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:24:19 AM EST

So now you have hid in the old "I aint gonna tell you!" "You aint worthy." "You won't understand."

Reminds me of the excuses given for saying mass in Latin.

Wow and ha. Maybe a ho ho.

Item 2 contains, according to the article, a direct quote from the FISA Court of Review. The only way for that to be wrong is for the court to have never said it.

Did, or did not the court say it? Yes? No?

The other claim is that four courts of appeal held that it was legal. That's pretty straight forward.

Let's review:

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

Do you claim that they never said that?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[ Parent ]

I just saw your parse (1.00 / 1) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:48:26 AM EST

2 is....that has been contradicted by every other Court hearing such issues

So Item 2 is correct as written.

And if Item 2 is correct, it follows that item 1 is also correct.

Your claim is that other courts have disagreed, not that Schmidt or Powerline was inaccurate.

Who are these courts?
Why couldn't you have just said that? That you would disagree with any favorable ruling re wire taps is understandable.

: dicta (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 12:55:18 PM EST

Look it up.
Silberman, look him up.

[ Parent ]

Once again (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Sailor on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 12:05:03 AM EST

ppj resorts to powerlie, and can't quote anything except an extremist wrongwing blog.

[ Parent ]

Sailor loves strawmen (1.00 / 1) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:47:35 AM EST

As I noted above in the link I provided:

The underlying article for this comes from the Chicago Tribune which has moved it into the archives. Please feel free to pay the cost and you can read the whole thing.

Now, if you think PowerLine is lying, I invite you to do to their site, click on the "contact" button and tell them that.

When you have done that, I invite you to contact the Chicago Tribune and explain to them that they are lying.

Perhaps you can share their reactions with us.

[ Parent ]

: link to sources ... (5.00 / 0) (#69)
by Sailor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:48:36 PM EST

... not opinions.
Opps, sorry, you can't link to the alleged article, just to what your wrongwing masters tell you to.
jimbot2007
Pros: constantly repeats his masters' talking points ... no matter how often they move the goal posts.
Cons: can't actually link to any objective news.

[ Parent ]

Of course he resorts to PowerBlind (none / 0) (#49)
by Edger on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 09:19:51 AM EST

He's found one guy in the who world who will lie as blatantly and ineptly as he does, so it's a natural fit for him to quote him as an all-knowing authority figure he can point to and say "oooooooo! look! look! he said it tew! it must be trew!"

[ Parent ]

he article came from the Chicago Tribune. (1.00 / 1) (#50)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:04:53 AM EST

You seem to be blind.

The article came from the Chicago Tribune.

Is it your contention that the Tribune is a tool of the mighty Powerline?

You are a funny guy.

[ Parent ]

Uhhh, YOU say it came from the CTrib ... (5.00 / 0) (#70)
by Sailor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:53:33 PM EST

... powerlie sez it came from the CTrib (maybe, I'm starting to suspect that ppj constantly links to powerlie because they give him money), but you can't offer an actual link to the CTrib article!?

And there is no way in hell I will increase powerlie's 'click thrus' for the same reason that Jeralyn refuses to link to the she pundit w/o shame.

[ Parent ]

Hinderaker is PowerBlinding you (none / 0) (#52)
by Edger on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:24:47 AM EST

and trying to spin a completely debunked Schmidt, as BTD has already explained to you above (which you have thoroughly ignored). You are the only one left in the world falling for it, which is no surprise.

But feel free to continue making a fool of yourself.

[ Parent ]

Nope I've got my Independent Raybans (1.00 / 1) (#54)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:57:40 AM EST

on. You need a pair. About $100 at the discount joints. Get wrap arounds.

What BTD finally said was:

(my item)2 is....that has been contradicted by every other Court hearing such issues

That means they disagree.

My question is what courts? What cases?

[ Parent ]

You want to know what courts... (5.00 / 0) (#55)
by Edger on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 11:04:53 AM EST

The answers are above in this thread, and here.

[ Parent ]

: So you don't know. (1.00 / 1) (#61)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 09:04:29 PM EST

Figures.

[ Parent ]

tru dat, but dis (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by NMvoiceofreason on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 11:31:43 AM EST

FISA (50 USC 1801 et. seq.) until last week did not comprehend foreign communications involving US persons or territories.

The TSP and TIA programs acquired signals from within the US, all perfectly legal under FISA, until an "intercept" was made and the information was used.

Thus the program was declared illegal, in that warrantless searches were made on US teritory or of US persons.

District Court findings

On August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in ACLU v. NSA that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was unconstitutional under the Fourth and First Amendments and enjoined the NSA from using the program to conduct electronic surveillance "in contravention of [FISA or Title III]".[61] In her ruling,[62] she wrote:
" The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has indisputably violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

[ Parent ]

From your link. (1.00 / 1) (#62)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 09:08:13 PM EST

On July 6, 2007 the 6th U.S. Circuit of Appeals dismissed the case ACLU v. NSA finding that the plaintiffs had no standing.

You quote a court case that has been overturned.

[ Parent ]

PPJ, do you perceive that August 17, 2006 (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Dark Avenger on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:12:06 PM EST

comes after July 5, 2006, or, as you often accuse others here, were you just trying to be snarky and inaccurate?

[ Parent ]

Huh?? (1.00 / 0) (#64)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 09:03:34 AM EST

The original ruling was in 8/17/06..

NMvoiceofreason wrote:

On August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in ACLU v. NSA that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was unconstitutional under the Fourth and First Amendments and enjoined the NSA from using the program to conduct electronic surveillance "

And then.....

I quoted from NM's link:

Something about NM quoting a court case that has been overturned to prove something you don't understand?

[ Parent ]

Sorry, PPJ (5.00 / 2) (#65)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:05:51 AM EST

but the ruling overturned the standing of the plaintiffs to sue, not the content of the ruling by Judge Diggs, so like MS Tech Support, you're correct but your lack of understanding of the legal system has tripped you up again.

[ Parent ]

As usual, he is wrong (5.00 / 2) (#66)
by NMvoiceofreason on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 11:49:59 AM EST

Thanks Dark Avenger, for the back up. Maybe we can get jimakaPPJ some remedial classes in the fundamentals of the law. "Stare Decisis" is the principle that "once it has been decided", it should not be decided differently without good cause. Jurisdiction and standing are the issues having to establish that this is the correct court and the correct party, in the interests of judicial economy.

The finding of lack of standing does not remove the decision that FISA was violated and the program was unconstitutional. It simply means that the people who were suing were not the right people to be before the court.

If you have a law degree, jimakaPPJ, please shred it and send the chaff back to the school, with a letter asking them to upgrade their program to at least a level comparable to that offered by even correspondence schools to paralegals.

[ Parent ]

To paraphrase Will Rogers (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 02:48:32 PM EST

who was lucky enough not to meet PPJ, all Jim knows about the law is what he reads in Powerbloatline.com. newzwaxc.com, etc...........

[ Parent ]

: He reads more than just My Pet Goat (5.00 / 0) (#68)
by Edger on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:00:31 PM EST

Hu's on first?
George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?
Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George: Great. Lay it on me.
Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.
George: That's what I want to know.
Condi: That's what I'm telling you.
George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow's name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The Chinaman!
Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whaddya' asking me for?

[ Parent ]

Well (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Maryb2004 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:55:07 PM EST

you can't counsel or assist a client in conduct that you know to be illegal or fraudulent.

Of course, is Bush the client of the AG? No.

[ Parent ]

KNOW to be illegal (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:58:33 PM EST

He can easily say he thought it was legal.

It was an untested legal theory.

[ Parent ]

You're saying (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Maryb2004 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:02:36 PM EST

that he didn't KNOW that wiretapping in violation of the statute was illegal?

I think you're right that misleading Congress is the better route, but come on ... are you really saying he didn't KNOW?

[ Parent ]

I'm saying (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:05:23 PM EST

he could claim it.

And Gonzo is pretty dim, it might even be true.

[ Parent ]

If he can claim that (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Maryb2004 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:07:39 PM EST

and get away with it there is no hope for our judicial system.

[ Parent ]

I'm pretty sure that Gonzo, (none / 0) (#24)
by Edger on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:40:12 PM EST

like some that comment here, is smarter than he pretends to be.

[ Parent ]

Don't go there. (none / 0) (#28)
by oculus on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:10:28 PM EST

Why not? (none / 0) (#31)
by Edger on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:43:44 PM EST

Bush and Gonzo and the neocons lie about everything else.

They see to like using the incompetency defense and the Democrats on the Hill keep giving them a pass when they use it.

Why wouldn't Gonzo lie about his own intelligence level, by pretending to be stupid?

[ Parent ]

I was referring to the (none / 0) (#32)
by oculus on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:58:01 PM EST

"some who comment here" portion of your previous comment.

[ Parent ]

: I know. (none / 0) (#33)
by Edger on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:09:04 PM EST

neocons... sigh.

[ Parent ]

So is every lawyer I know. (none / 0) (#22)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:16:45 PM EST

Ezra did screw up (none / 0) (#9)
by RedHead on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:39:56 PM EST

if he's gonna mud wrestle, he has to be prepared.

But what he did wrong was fire prosecutors for political reasons.

that was weak

if he decided to focus on USA as opposed to the cover-up or TSA or FISA, etc., etc., he should of said: "from the evidence it appears Gonzo maneuvered USA to affect political elections (ie starting/stopping investigations)."

: Agreed (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:41:53 PM EST

but I would have said "he appears to have lied to Congress about it."

[ Parent ]

ethical vs. legal (none / 0) (#16)
by sam on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:03:42 PM EST

Let's also not forget that for lawyers, "ethical" obligations (which for non-lawyers might just be questions of morality) can sometimes rise to the level of legal obligations. Violations of a particular bar's code of ethics (including, in certain jurisdictions, simply the "appearance of impropriety" with no actual impropriety) can result in real-world penalties (although these are usually civil, not criminal in nature). So the question of whether what he did was "ethical" may have greater legal implications than, say, if a non-lawyer like Bush did the firings directly.

: Not to mention misleading a tribunal is also (none / 0) (#23)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:18:27 PM EST

an ethical violation.

[ Parent ]

A Prosecutor Could Prosecute Gonzo (none / 0) (#18)
by po on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:06:07 PM EST

If only Gonzo wasn't the prosecutor.

High crimes . . .

He participated in widespread and massive violations of FISA. That it was purportedly necessary "for the good of the nation" is hogwash.

He improperly influenced USA's performing their jobs, from the attorney firings tied to bogus "voter fraud" and political prosecutions to his refusal to enforce the Constitutional rights of all Americans.

He has repeatedly lied to Congress

He has consistently failed to turn over requested information without any legal justification

Misdemeanors . . .

He has ruined the reputation of the Justice Department.

He let Karl Rove's political hacks control hiring and firing decisions at DOJ

And we can cry all we want, because no one, not now and not later, is going to do anything about it. Because the truth of the matter is that as long as most of this country is not inconvenienced, they don't care.

I saw Klein and was NOT impressed (none / 0) (#20)
by ksh on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:10:28 PM EST

ARguably, Gonzales committed a "crime" in misleading congress and even though that's not exactly proven yet, I think Klein could have been stronger on the implications of both Gonzales' testimony (and those who contradict it) and potential criminal (perhaps ethical is a better word) of interfering with DOJ investigations by firing attorneys. Yes, a president can fire a DOJ attorney for political reasons, but not for just ANY political reasons.

What about coaching witnesses? Perjury? I think the thing to say is that "Gonzales has yet to be convicted of any crime, but the evidence seems to show X, Y, Z."

I thought Klein sounded like he got caught flat footed and not prepared. If I were a pundit, I would be prepared to repeat 3-4 sentences on every issue Matthews might ask about. Hmmmm, what are they called, um, oh yeah...."talking points."

Pundits don't have to be automatons, but jeez, a casual viewer must have come away from that thinking the Dems are on a fishing trip.

Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:43:49 PM EST

I agree but I was tryng to be nice.

[ Parent ]

: also have to say (none / 0) (#30)
by ksh on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:27:52 PM EST

I think Matthews was lobbing Klein a softball and was a little surprised when he didn't swing for the fences. But since Matthews has become a little (very little) bit less patient with Republican talking heads, he should have called that woman on her nastiness. "How OLD are you to be so naive?" Damn. In response, I would have been tempted to say "How senile are you that you get taken in by Bushco's lame talking points."
But that's me, too big-mouthed and reactionary to be a pundit.

[ Parent ]

Klein was criminally feeble (none / 0) (#34)
by Kalkaino on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:35:14 PM EST

Hanretty perfectly demonstrates today's Republican attitude: "Presumption of innocence means that Republicans are beyond reproach unless actually serving time (at which time their Conservative status is revoked) or pardoned."

But why are the critics of Republicans so universally flabbergasted on television? Klein should absolutely have said "Gonzales committed perjury before Congress and half the country was eye-witness to it" -- because that's the plain truth that history will bear out. (happy to ake best on that.) But Klein didn't have the cojones.

Also, re the meme: 'they can be fired any time for any reason' -- suppose the AG or the Prez calls a US attorney in and says "blow me" and the US attorney won't take the "pleasure of the President" so literally. Surely that's a case where it's illegal to fire said US attorney. Maybe a brute hypothetical like that would help Joe Schmo understand that his prerogative does have limits.

: Under your hypothetical, remedy probably (none / 0) (#35)
by oculus on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:41:01 PM EST

would be damages, not keeping the job, IMO.

[ Parent ]

Gonzales has commited crimes (none / 0) (#38)
by kraftysue on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:59:50 PM EST

How about being White House counsel and allowing employees to bypass the Presidential Records Act by using their gwbush41@rnc.com e-mailings?

How about allowing DOJ to participate in violating the Hatch Act in their political briefings to departments?

Mueller provides indictable proof (none / 0) (#71)
by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 07:40:36 PM EST

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/17/why-mueller%e2%80%99s-notes-matter/

Why Mueller's notes matter
By: Steve Benen on Friday, August 17th, 2007 at 6:30 AM - PDT
Following up on news from late yesterday, FBI Director Robert Mueller agreed to share (redacted) notes he took about the now-infamous hospital visit with John Ashcroft in 2004 with the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman Conyers emphasized revelations about the White House seeking Ashcroft's authorization for Bush's warrantless surveillance program.
But let's not overlook that Mueller's notes have also caught Alberto Gonzales in yet another demonstrable lie.
Then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was "feeble," "barely articulate" and "stressed" moments after a hospital room confrontation in March 2004 with Alberto R. Gonzales, who wanted Ashcroft to approve a warrantless wiretapping program over Justice Department objections, according to notes from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III that were released yesterday. [...]
Mueller's description of Ashcroft's physical condition that night contrasts with testimony last month from Gonzales, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ashcroft was "lucid" and "did most of the talking" during the brief visit.
Got that? Gonzales publicly testified (remember, lying to Congress is a crime) that Ashcroft was cogent and communicating what Gonzales and Card when to his hospital room to take advantage of him. James Comey has already testified under oath that Gonzales was lying, and now FBI Director Mueller is confirming Comey's account.
I've long since given up keeping track of all the times Gonzales has been caught lying, so I no longer hold any hope that the mendacity will reach a critical mass that will force the AG's departure. But I am curious how Gonzales' backers can continue to rationalize obvious falsehoods.
Anonymous Liberal digs even deeper with a terrific post.

Now can we find ANY lawyer with enough integrity to indict him? No AUSA will do it. Oh, well. So much for that ethics and integrity stuff.

Before people object.... (none / 0) (#72)
by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 07:44:34 PM EST

Yes, I know he has to be impeached, but there has always been a chicken or the egg problem with indictment first or impeachment first, with the most common result being the indictment held in abeyance until the impeachment is completed....